481 Responses

Steve: _ I have heard that Louisa is religious and want to know what her motivation is._

Why would her being religious got anything to do with it? I know the American Episcopal church has just approved a liturgy for blessing same sex marriage/union (not sure what they specifically call it) irrelevant of secular law. If Louisa Wall wants a church wedding then it's not up to the secular law at all, but her own church's position and whatever liturgies they have.

I disagree, Steve. I think it's a reflection of the significant shift in public opinion - and the change here mirrors that in the States.

we are gay, not straight, and nor do we want or need heteronormalized existences.

We who, dude? Me, I'm bi. I want the same options in all of my relationships. I don't want one set of rights if I'm "being straight" and another if I'm "being gay". But that's me. I don't speak for bi people, and you don't speak for gay people. You certainly don't speak for the gay people I know working really hard for this.

there are only two differences betwixt the marriage act and the civil unions act.

And there’s one massive baseline equality fail. I know it didn’t go down well around here, but I wanted to tell Helen Clark to go fuck a weasel when she said if civil unions were available at the time, she would never have gotten married.

You know why that irritated me me no end – there’s nothing preventing Helen Clark and Peter Davis dissolving their marriage and becoming civil union partners. But she’s was perfectly happy denying same-sex couples absolute, unconditional equality before the law. So thanks for sharing your unthinking hetero privilege with the rest of us Helen but you just didn’t get it.

Oh, and here's another opportunistic weasel-speak I can't stand. "Gee, gay person X. doesn't think marriage equality is an important issue either." What that proves beyond the fact that Teh Gay Borg don't exist currently escapes me. I've no interest in forcing GLBT people to the nearest registry office at shotgun-point. But, one more time, I'd like David and I to be able to make that choice on our own behalf.

And there’s one massive baseline equality fail. I know it didn’t go down well around here, but I wanted to tell Helen Clark to go fuck a weasel when she said if civil unions were available at the time, she would never have gotten married.

You know why that irritated me me no end – there’s nothing preventing Helen Clark and Peter Davis dissolving their marriage and becoming civil union partners. But she’s was perfectly happy denying same-sex couples absolute, unconditional equality before the law. So thanks for sharing your unthinking hetero privilege with the rest of us Helen but you just didn’t get it.

It seems unnecessarily abusive. Clark’s on record as having believed the Marriage Act is discriminatory but that she lacked the political scope to amend it – getting civil unions through was hard enough eight years ago. There were neither sufficient Parliamentary votes or public support for amending the Marriage Act then. Now it appears there may well be both, it would be nice to think her successors in government would be capable of the political courage she and others showed.

So, no, I don’t think “perfectly happy” or “unthinking” fairly describe her view of the issue.

Steve, it may not matter to you. But it matters to other people. And marriage is only heteronormative because it was only straight couples that were allowed to do it. If you don't believe in it, you don't, and that's fine, but enough people believe in it, and want to see it happen, that it is indeed time. And I think it IS a big issue. I want to wear a big damned hat to Craig and David's wedding. So there.

I usually refer Christian homophobes to the First Book of Samuel in the Old Testament. Not only is it very funny to watch them squirm in embarrasment and then have to admit to a non-Christian that they don't know what it says. It's highly apposite as well. (Oh, all right I'll tell you what it says). It's a very raunchy story about this hot shepherd boy who goes out there and kills Goliath, and then gets invite to play the lyre at the royal court of King Saul as therapy for his migraines. There he meets the king's pretty young son (Jonathan) and they get up to all sorts of sexual high jinks. These are fairly explicitly described with no sign of any disapproval. Ho ho!

Well, I am going to withdraw from that in one respect: It’s well on the record that she was pressured by some arse-weasels in the Labour Party to marry before the ’81 general election because nobody in Mount Albert would vote for a woman living in sin. Right? That was just revolting, and I’ve no cause to doubt her sincerity in saying a civil union would have been her preferred option if it was available to her at the time. Shouldn’t have disrespected that, and I withdraw and apologize.

But, still… I hope she got the irony in saying she would have made a choice that, in the other direction, same-sex couples (including some very close friends of hers) didn’t have. It really raised my hackles and (yes) I sincerely think there was some tone-deafness from someone usually a hell of a lot more prone to thinking twice before speaking.

sorry steve i may not have been clear. the only people within my community who are obsessed with the marriage act (pop quiz - name the 2 differences between the marriage act and civil union act), are people raised in religion and/or still religious. the issues facing gltq people, and nz society at large are far more pressing concerns for all of us than 2 differnces in legislation, one of which is already being addressed with a bi-partisan working party.

what mechanism has been used to deny same sex couples a marriage licence

I think only heterosexual couples can apply to DIA for a marriage certificate. Three lesbian couples challenged this a few years ago, as the Marriage Act states only that marriage is between "two people". The courts found that this was legally assumed to mean a man and a woman, so their applications for marriage licences were declined.

I appreciate that he said it. I wish he’d done it immediately, because one gets a finger-in-the-wind impression now.

And, Colin Craig is going to burn a bunch of money on a campaign to "look intelligently at the differences between homosexual parenting and a Mum and a Dad". "Homosexual parenting". This should be hysterical.

I must not go trolling the Kiwiboggers, I must not... Oh, screw it I can't be bothered walking down the river to the next troll-free bridge.

I really want to meet these "gay stormtroopers" one of them refers to. They sound like fun...

Key's particular phrasing around "won't affect my marriage" recalls that awful Herald front page ~2003 when some provincial beauty queen was espousing that civil unions shouldn't be allowed because what did it do for her and her potential marriage? Huh? What?

Three lesbian couples challenged this a few years ago, as the Marriage Act states only that marriage is between "two people". The courts found that this was legally assumed to mean a man and a woman, so their applications for marriage licences were declined.

Thanks JoJo, quite an interesting slant on the whole thing. So basically it's not just "the State" (dum dum duuuummmmmm) deciding who can marry, it's non-elected bureaucratic apparatchiks (dum. dum. DDDUUUMMMMMM) deciding. The freedom-loving, anti-state conservative right must be applauding this removal of bureaucratic interference from our private lives. Oh wait...